Should Britain become a social democracy? Mark Littlewood debates William Clouston 

Exactly, i disagree with both to a certain extent but there is a lot of both sides i can agree with but great hear a proper discussion

I think Littlewood has serious points… I think the government is suppressing private enterprise and innovation, taxing and regulating them to death.

Unfortunately I can't help but feel that the indifference that Classical Liberals wear as a badge of honour also crosses over with the class snobbery which poisons this country.

To a certain extent it’s how the terminology is interpreted, take internationalist for example, Britain has always been a strong international trader BUT the current model is Britain plc’s asset’s for sale. There is a lot of political and monetary terminology that has changed (twisted by either left or right to suit their agenda) in recent decades, if you take the traditional meaning (selling our quality made goods internationally), that’s generally where the SDP is. We really must bring these terms back to there original meaning so we must use them, despite some perhaps misunderstanding along the way. My own personal view on ‘green’ would be to get a council run by the ‘green party’ to triple its recycling % to then equal my own county % for instance. Perhaps ‘green’ has also been twisted to mean tax in peoples minds (including mine) these days.

Many thanks, Paul for your clarification - it's much appreciated and certainly provides 'food for thought'!

Sorry, what do you mean 'based'? Based on what?

@@vatsmith8759 It's Internet speak as an antonym to 'cringe'; easiest shorthand definition to walk around with therefore is: the opposite of painful to listen to. It comes out of a mileu where all things globalist, woke & lib-prog are definitionally categorised as 'cringe and so the opposite of those are therefore also taken as categorically 'based'

@@GodsOwnPrototype Thanks!

@@vatsmith8759 No worries

@@vatsmith8759 no immigration for 10 years, pro family and anti international finance.

@Samuel Turner The point on immigration is that people & peoples are different, economic factors are not the most important considerations and indigenous Britons are currently set to be made an absolute minority across the UK (indeed the British Isles as a whole) within 40years, and the English within England in possibly almost half that time, although they've just delayed releasing the census data for immigration and ethnicity and also since the census was taken all inflow trends have skyrocketed, despite the pandemic, and additionally excess deaths of the established populace remains high and does not as yet look likely to be returning to the old normal.

@@GodsOwnPrototype you're just scaremongering. British is not an ethnicity, and the past 60 years have shown that we're remarkably good at integrating migrants from around the world who can themselves become British.

@@samuelturner1668 Apologies, you're in denial, live a very sheltered life or you're delusional. In 2010 Oxford Emeritus Professor of Demography published an article stating the then estimate of the date at which White Britons would be made a minority in the UK as 2066. In the decade since the inflow of foreigners both legally and illegally has done nothing but rise markedly. So called 'integration' can only be said to have occurred because of the wholesale jettisoning of native culture and standards and the demonisation to the point of criminalisation of native objections to it if not carefully worded. I can go several days walking in my London neighbourhood before I see another native Briton. I frequently see looks of amazed curiosity on faces of some children and adults I walk passed so rarely do they see a native in the flesh. There are tube stations whose signage has been completely converted over to not just a foreign language but a foreign incomprehensible script. We don't need to go much into the normalisation of savage criminal practices and near or total abandonment of enforcement and prosecution of most crimes across most of the country. This isn't integration.

@@GodsOwnPrototype why is skin colour so important? The USA is far more ethically diverse than the UK and has a richer and more dynamic country. If you don't like living with brown people then that's your problem.

@@samuelturner1668 OK, so you're a deluded idealogue; reality check: people are different and they are different in more important ways than skin pigmentation and the ideas that have been waved past their brains in the last few years. We are all each of us embedded in reality, in histories and lineages that exert their own restrictions, capacities and velocity - we are not totally interchangeable and fundamentally reprogrammable 'human' units of economic value generation and hedonic experience. Having various neighbours and coworkers of diverse origins throughout my life is not the issue, having the total corrosion of all tributaries of my native culture and being during my lifetime in my own homeland is the issue. We could have hundreds of millions of foreign peoples come to the UK every decade with minimal issues, the problem is that they stay and that people like you see no problem with the total destruction of the values and life effort of your ancestors to bring you into being because your values and horizons are so small and short. There are already more Muslims in the UK than the combined population of the Northern Irish, Welsh and Cornish, besides the fact that there is nothing remotely close to a democratic mandate for this state of affairs having been brought about, the conquest and subjugation by that civilisational people of the seat of British civilisation is one of the more optimistic outcomes for it will at least bring order and coherence rather than continual balkanised internecine hate filled chaotic conflict. To think the lessons of the sectarian conflict that arose from the relatively minor ethnic differences of The Troubles so completely passed you by that you think recreating the balkans with a global mix of difference would create some eden rather than historically observable reality still amazes me.

America & Britain are 2 party, not 'multi' party democracies ?Their common goal is to govern.Their policy promises are never fulfilled.Success goes to the person or group that can sell the biggest dream [pledge, vow, promise] to the voters, in any system of representation ?

@@petermclelland278 I am aware UK and Us are 2 party based, that was my very point, that that does not serve these nations well and that both could benefit from moving towards to a more democratic construct.

@@Mike-ox8sq Actually, house of lords should be hereditary and should have veto powers over the lower house. The lords reform of the 1900s is what ultimately paved the way for high tax welfare state. The aristocracy was an integral part of the english constitution and quite a necessary one to restrain the over centralization of political power.

@@freedomwatch3991 The Lords owe much of their power and wealth to the theft of the common land from the 1400s onwards - indeed classical liberalism itself was crafted to justify this epic appropriation of the means of survival for countless ordinary people. THAT's why fellows like you want limits on democracy - so that there can be little opposition to the rule of the "propertied class". We only have high taxes because we bailed out the banks, have mass immigration and the top 1% have every means possible to evade paying what they are supposed to on paper. We wouldn't need to spend half as much as we do on welfare if we had a sane attitude towards unemployment and migration